Set-aside (Hansard, 28 January 1993)

§ 3. Mr. Barry Field
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the provisions of the permanent set-aside scheme.

§ Mr. Curry
We are awaiting a Commission proposal on non-rotational set-aside under the arable area payments scheme and expect decisions later in the year. We are also considering how to implement a scheme for the 20-year withdrawal of land from production as part of the agri-environmental programme. We shall be consulting on both schemes shortly.

§ Mr. Field
Does my hon. Friend recognise the love that the British people have for the patchwork neatness of the British countryside in areas such as Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the anxiety of the public and of farmers about the possibility of growing weeds and brambles on good quality agricultural land? Will he push the Commission hard to come up with a scheme that will ensure that some set-aside money goes into planting broadleaf woodland such as the good old English oak?

§ Mr. Curry
I am as pro-tree as my hon. Friend is. We hope to be able to implement two schemes that will answer his concern. The first is the so-called non-rotational scheme, which can use land set aside for periods longer than a year for things like woodlands, biomass, wildlife habitats and archaeological sites. A long-term, 20-year scheme will be heavily targeted at the creation of habitats. The two schemes will show that we can build many sensible environmental benefits into the set-aside programme.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Can the Minister not see the sheer injustice of the situation in which farmers are paid not to grow things while miners are thrown out of work? If farmers can be paid not to grow things, why cannot miners be paid not to mine things?

§ Mr. Curry
Farmers are not being paid not to grow things: they are being paid for the penalty of a loss of income on land which would otherwise cost every person in the United Kingdom too much money. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do is to build sensible environmental benefits into the programme. I know that the hon. Gentleman is greatly concerned about that aspect of policy. I am sure that he will find when he makes trips into the countryside that when the schemes are operational not only will they result in cheaper cereals, which will benefit his constituents, but the countryside will benefit from being environmentally enhanced.